Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned on Sunday the framework Iranian nuclear agreement being sought by international negotiators, saying it was even worse than his country had feared.

Israel has mounted what it terms an “uphill battle” against an agreement that might ease sanctions on the Iranians while leaving them with a nuclear infrastructure with bomb-making potential. Tehran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

“This deal, as it appears to be emerging, bears out all of our fears, and even more than that,” Netanyahu told his cabinet in Jerusalem as the United States, five other world powers and Iran worked toward a March 31 deadline in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Noting advances made by Iranian-allied forces in Yemen and other Arab countries, Netanyahu accused the Islamic republic of trying to “conquer the entire Middle East” while moving toward nuclearisation.

“The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous to humanity, and must be stopped,” he said.

House Speaker Boehner will travel to Israel this week during the Congressional recess. On CNN’s “State of the Union”, Sunday, he told Dana Bash that his plans were made before the ongoing acrimony between Netanyahu and Obama became an open spat.

“There are serious issues and activities going on in the Middle East and I think it’s critically important for members of Congress to hear from foreign leaders, other governments, other parts of their government, to get a real handle on the challenges that we face there,” Boehner said.

Boehner argued that Netanyahu hasn’t crossed any lines and pointed out that Israel doesn’t really have a peace partner at the moment.

“Well, he doesn’t have a partner,” Boehner said. “How do you have a two-state solution when you don’t have a partner in that solution, when you don’t have a partner for peace, when you’ve got a — when the other state is vowing to wipe you off the face of the earth?”

Boehner also defended Netanyahu from criticism from Obama and the White House that has mounted over the last month.

“I think the animosity exhibited by our administration toward the prime minister of Israel is reprehensible,” Boehner said. “And I think that the pressure that they’ve put on him over the last four or five years have frankly pushed him to the point where he had to speak up.”

The White House has repeatedly stated that the agreement being negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 will not require Senate advice and consent. It has also threatened to veto legislation providing for congressional approval, if it is sent to the president’s desk.

The deadline for a framework nuclear agreement is Tuesday night. Kerry, who has been negotiating with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in the Swiss city of Lausanne since Thursday, was joined at the weekend by his counterparts from the P5+1, the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

Netanyahu, who in a controversial address before Congress early this month warned that a proposed nuclear deal would be dangerous for Israel, the region and the world, doubled down on the criticism on Sunday.

“This agreement, as it appears, confirms all of our concerns and even more so,” he said at a cabinet meeting.

Iran long held designs on a Shia Crescent and control over Arab lands, which helps explain why Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others counted themselves as our allies. They are furious as they watch Iran get a nuclear pass from Obama and a green light to expand its power.

The nuclear program will have the United Nations stamp of approval, as will Iranian control of four Arab capitals — Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and now Sanaa, Yemen. Indeed, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry suggest Iran even could be an ally in the fight against Islamic State and al Qaeda. Already there has been coordination there, leading critics to say America is acting as the Iranian air force.

Israel, of course, sees the pattern as insane and a threat because Iran has threatened to wipe it off the face of the earth. In retaliation for complaining about the nuke deal, Obama denounces our ally and threatens to “re-evaluate” our support for the Jewish state.

But Israel is not alone, with our Sunni Arab allies also viewing Iran as their mortal enemy. Sen. John McCain quoted one of those Arab leaders as concluding, “We believe it is more dangerous to be a friend of America’s than an enemy.”

These are unprecedented developments, veering so far from the norm and happening so fast that consequences are piling up faster than they can be comprehended. Alliances built over decades are shattered in a relative flash, inviting aggression and endless conflict. The toxic brew of Islamic fanaticism and nuclear proliferation could ignite a world conflagration.

These are grim thoughts, expressed because it is impossible to imagine any other outcome of Iran’s rise.

Like this:

On Saturday night’s Justice, Judge Jeanine used the phrase “sleeping with the enemy” to describe the creepy, cozy relationship between Obama Regime and the Iranian Regime.

“More American blood has been spilled by Iran and the terrorism it sponsors in the Middle East than by any other country,” Pirro stated. “Iran says its within its rights to enrich uranium. That’s like saying a proven mass murderer living next door to a daycare center has the right to buy as many AK-47s as he wants. Mr. President, America needs to stop sleeping with the enemy, dancing with the devil, and writing love letters to those who want to kill us.”

“The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” Motaghi told a TV station after just defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks. The P 5 + 1 is made up of United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, plus Germany.

Think about this: By a vote of 100-0 the Senate passed its most stringent Iran sanctions bill to date. The administration opposed it. The vote was on the amendment by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) The measure would: 1) Prohibit the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account on foreign financial institutions engaged in non-petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 60 days; 2) Impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions, including central banks, engaged in petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 180 days with 180-day special exemptions tied to the availability of non-Iranian oil on the market and a country’s significant reduction in purchases of Iranian oil; 3) Provide a humanitarian exception for food, medicine and medical devices; and 4) Provide the president with an unclassified (with classified annex, if necessary) national security waiver authority every 120 days.

Like this:

Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries are conducting military actions against Iranian interests without telling the United States because they no longer trust us with keeping the intelligence secret from Iran.

How does it feel to be part of the axis of evil, America? Because under Obama, we are no longer considered one of the good guys on the world stage. Our allies in the war on terror no longer trust us. And why should they when the president’s new BFF is the belligerent and apocalyptic Islamic Republic of Iran?

NBC’s Richard Engel reported Friday that U.S. officials were stunned they were not given any notice before Saudi Arabia launched attacks against Houthi rebels. According to Engel, military leaders were finding out about the developments on the Yemen border in real time.

Engel said officials from both the military and members of Congress believe they were not given advanced warning because the Arab nations do not trust the Obama administration after they befriended Iran.

“Saudi Arabia and other countries simply don’t trust the United States any more, don’t trust this administration, think the administration is working to befriend Iran to try to make a deal in Switzerland, and therefore didn’t feel the intelligence frankly would be secure. And I think that’s a situation that is quite troubling for U.S. foreign policy,” Engel said.

Like this:

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and Col. David Hunt appeared on Fox News, Thursday night to discuss the Bowe Bergdahl desertion charge, with Eric Bolling filling in for Sean Hannity. Peters passionately decried the left’s argument that Bergdahl suffered enough at the hands of the Taliban while he was in captivity.

“His desertion led to far more American deaths and wounding than you’ve heard so far,” Peters began.

He went on to say that he and his military buddies are furiousabout “this instant campaign on the part of talking heads, the media and …the American left to protect the White House and declare that poor little Bowe has suffered enough.”

“Listen,”Peters seethed. “Bowe Bergdahl came home – he’s in good health – he’s got four limbs, he’s got ten toes, he’s got ten fingers. He’s functional on a day to day basis. Where is the left’s sympathy, where is the media’s sympathy for the soldiers who didn’t come home – for their families? Where is their sympathy the soldiers, Marines, and Navy corpsman who suffered burns all over their bodies, and lifetime disfigurement, where is their sympathy for all those who suffered grievous wounds and permanent disabilities – some of them searching for Bowe Bergdahl. Where is the sympathy for those guys? I don’t feel the love!”

Later on, Peters dismissed the argument that Bergdahl had suffered enough because “he was chained by the Taliban.”

“Let me tell you how not to get tortured by the Taliban,” Peters explained. “Don’t desert to the Taliban! Works every time!”

When these formidable jihadists rampaged through Nigeria, last year – kidnapping schoolgirls, slaughtering Christians, and burning down churches, the Obama administration’s primary response was a hash-tag campaign on Twitter. If the besieged people of Nigeria expected more than lip service from the United States in their battle against Boko Haram in the days and weeks that came, they were sorely mistaken. They got bupkis.

Clearly, a more serious response than #BringBackOurGirls was needed to combat the growing menace – but the United States all but abandoned their African ally. Not only did the Obama Regime refused to sell Nigeria the arms it needed to fight Boko Haram, it blocked other Western allies from helping them, too.

Back in January, the Jerusalem Post reported that Obama refused to allow “the resale of US-made military helicopters by Israel to the Nigerian government for its fight against Boko Haram last summer.”

What do you suppose was behind the Obama Regime’s abject refusal to help this ally fight these terrorists?

Would you believe that there’s a presidential election coming up in Nigeria, and Obama’s favored Muslim candidate is in a tight race against the Christian President Goodluck Jonathan?

And would you further believe that a political consulting group founded by Obama confidante David Axelrod is assisting that candidate - Retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari - who hails from Muslim-dominated northern Nigeria from whence Boko Haram was spawned?

Thanks to the lack of cooperation and assistance from the United States, the Jonathan government has been failing miserably at beating back the terrorist scourge, with the president looking weak and ineffectual.

Desperate, the government finally turned to Russia, China and the black market to obtain the much needed arms.

Six years ago if you had heard of a United States president behaving this way, you might have been shocked. But today, we are no longer surprised by Obama’s lethal perfidy. We watch helplessly and with horror as the world crumbles.

At least 13,000 civilians dead in Nigeria since 2009 and the US looks the other way because Obama wants to put a progressive Muslim in power.

According to an anti-Buhari Nigerian blogger writing in theWestern Post:

In the last year, Nigeria sought aid from the White House for many initiatives, including the fight against Boko Haram.

The Obama administration refused to do anything but play [sic] lip service to Nigeria’s requests. However, it used public and private channels to internationally magnify every failure Nigeria’s government experienced.

In the last year, since the involvement of Axelrod’s firm, relations between the two nations have significantly deteriorated, with the US refusing to sell arms to Nigeria, a significant reduction in the purchase of Nigeria’s oil, and the cancellation of a military training agreement between Nigeria and the USA.

In turn, the Buhari-led Nigerian opposition used the U.S. government’s position as validation for their claim that the Nigerian government was a failure.

To top it off, Simpson reports that Secretary of State John Kerry “made a mockery of the administration’s pretext by hinting in January meetings with both Jonathan and Buhari that the Obama administration might allow weapon sales after the election.”

If the U.S. was so concerned about human rights violations, how could a mere election change that? Given the perception that Buhari has Obama’s implicit support, this sends an unmistakable message.

The administration also rationalized its decision to cut purchases of Nigerian oil by claiming that output from domestic oil fracking has reduced America’s dependence on foreign oil. But that begs the question: why have U.S. oil imports from other nations increased at the same time? Nigeria was formerly among America’s top five oil supplying countries, and America its largest customer. Nigeria relies on oil revenues for 70 percent of its budget. America’s decision to look elsewhere has been catastrophic for Nigeria’s economy.

After turning to Russia and China to obtain arms, Nigeria was able to fight aggressively and on the offensive against Boko Haram.

According to recent accounts, Boko Haram has gone to ground in the northeastern border regions. But whereas the border states of Niger, Chad, Benin and Cameroon formerly took a hands-off approach, they have now joined in the effort to destroy the group, pledging a total of 8,700 troops. Most recently, Boko Haram has been cleared of its northeastern strongholds in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa.

Read AIM’s exhaustive exclusive here and be sure to note that the rest of the media is curiously uninterested in this story.

There is not a single article mentioning Axelrod’s assistance to Buhari in any U.S. “mainstream” media outlet. Only the Washington Free Beacon ran a story.

Simpson concludes by noting that due to Obama’s horrendous policies, America is losing allies all over the world, while he cozies up to our worst enemies.

Despite his so-called outreach to “the Muslim world,” the few Muslim allies America has are calling him out. For example, observe the unprecedented spectacle of Arabs cheering Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the U.S. Congress. Columnist Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj of the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Jazirah, called Obama “the worst president in American history.” The only Muslims Obama seems to like are those who hate America, and he is going out of his way to court them, come what may.

Or as I put it in January – Obama always seems to err on the side of the militant Islamists, doesn’t he?

For some nefarious reason, this year’s Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Communities does not include Iran or Hezbollah. The official excuse the Obama Regime is using to explain why Iran and Hezbollah were left off the U.S. terror threat list doesn’t pass the smell test or even the laugh test. National Intelligence Director James Clapper has cited “a change in formatting” as the reason for this removal – evidently too ashamed to admit the awful truth – that Obama had agreed to do it as a concession in his nuke talks with Iran. “It’s a flat lie,” John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, last week. “The format of this years report is exactly the same as last year’s report,” Bolton explained. “Do they think we’re that stupid? Greta asked incredulously. “Yes,” Bolton answered flatly. “The people who would say this is a format change are weasels,” Bolton said. Bolton suspects that Iranian negotiators told American negotiators to “go easy on us on this terrorism stuff.”

SEE ALSO:Michael Goodwin, The New York Post: Israel: Beware of Obama: These are the best opening paragraphs I’ve read in a long time:

First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet. He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast. Now he’s coming for Israel. Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Like this:

I guess we’re supposed to all be too stupid to notice the hypocrisy here.

“I’m embarrassed for them,” said the president in an interview with Vice News.

“For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah,” Obama continued, “who they claim is our mortal enemy — and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement. It is close to unprecedented.”

Note he says THEY (the GOP) claim the Supreme Leader of Iran, (who saysthings like, “the Islamic peoples all over the world chant ‘Death to America!’ and “this battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it”) is our mortal enemy. Not he himself. No Obama seems to have found “common cause” with this person the unsophisticated troglodytes in the GOP think is a mortal enemy.

• “and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement”…

No. That was not their argument at all – basic or otherwise. That is a flat out lie. The point of their short, blunt letterwas to explain to Khamenei (who they – but presumably not Obama – consider a mortal enemy) that any agreement he makes with the president will not be binding, and could be overturned by a future congress.

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Nowhere in that letter do the Senators suggest that Obama can’t be trusted to follow through with an agreement.

Every single word of Obama’s answer was complete, unadulterated bullshit. It wasn’t – as Obama’s fanbois in the media would have it – “slick” – it wasn’t “too clever by half.” It wasn’t a brilliantly deceptive Jedi mind-trick or part of an awesome 3-steps-ahead chess move. It was transparently ridiculous nonsense.

But I’m not embarrassed for Obama. We expect him to be a lying hypocrite. We expect him to be a disdainful, treacherous cretin. It is his nature.

I’m embarrassed for his media toadies who allow him – time and time again – to get away with it.